Rolls-Royce Formally Enters B-52 Re-Engining Competition

On the same subject

• 

  August 18, 2020 | International, Naval

  Top US Navy chief talks connecting tech, recovering from accidents

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is on the brink of what could be a major shift in how it operates, but first the service's top officer wants a plan to both field technologies that have been lagging for years and develop a path forward to add new unmanned tech to the mainstream fleet. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday took on his latest role in August 2019 and has since been vocal about not just the need to field new tech, but also figuring out how it all fits together. In an exclusive July 16 interview with Defense News, the CNO talked about developing and executing his plans, as well as what it will take for the Navy to recover from a series of high-profile accidents and scandals. The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. Congress has been asking how the Navy plans to integrate unmanned surface vessels, and whether the service is prematurely committing to them. We've got a family of unmanned systems we're working on. Undersea, we've got extra-large, large and medium unmanned underwater vehicles; on the surface we have small, medium and large unmanned surface vessels; and in the air we have a number of programs. What I've asked the N9 [warfare systems directorate] to do is come to me with a campaign plan that ties all those together with objectives at the end. I've got a bunch of horses in the race, but at some point I have to put my money down on the thoroughbred that's going to take me across the finish line so I can make an investment in a platform I have high confidence in and that I can scale. What I've found is that we didn't necessarily have the rigor that's required across a number of programs that would bring those together in a way that's driven toward objectives with milestones. If you took a look at [all the programs], where are there similarities and where are there differences? Where am I making progress in meeting conditions and meeting milestones that we can leverage in other experiments? At what point do I reach a decision point where I drop a program and double down on a program that I can accelerate? Observers have questioned whether the Navy has a concrete idea of what it wants these unmanned surface vessels to do. What's the progress on that front? The concept of operations that the fleet is working on right now will be delivered in the fall, and that talks conceptually about how we intend to employ unmanned in distributed maritime operations. The other piece of this is, what would a day-to-day laydown look like of unmanned forward? The Navy has got to be forward: For obvious reasons we don't want the fight back here; the Navy exists to operate forward. That's where we need to be in numbers. And with unmanned, if you are not there at the right time, you are irrelevant. There has to be a number of unmanned [systems] forward. I can't just decide to rally unmanned out of San Diego or in the Pacific northwest at a time when they'll be too late to need. You've talked about a “Manhattan Project” to get a reliable network to deploy overseas that can bind together all these new platforms. Where are you with that? That's a critical piece of this, and a really important point of discussion with respect to unmanned, whether that's in the air, on the sea or under the sea, is the Navy Tactical Grid. Coming into the job, the projections for the Navy Tactical Grid was for delivery in about 2035. I knew that was way, way too late. We're investing in netted weapons, netted platforms, netted headquarters — but we don't have a net. So, on a handshake with [then-Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [David] Goldfein, I said: “Look, I am all in, and my vision is that the Navy Tactical Grid would be the naval plug into JADC2 [Joint All-Domain Command and Control].” So the Navy Tactical Grid is a very critical piece of the unmanned campaign plan because it becomes the main artery for controlling all those unmanned platforms. Without it, I have a bunch of unmanned that I shouldn't be building because I can't control it very well. I need to put a team of the best subject matter experts that I have on the Navy Tactical Grid to deliver it here within the next few years. As part of its mark on the National Defense Authorization Act, both the House and the Senate made moves to slow down the development of the large unmanned surface vessel. They cited technical glitches with the Littoral Combat Ship program and the Ford class that have resulted in delays. Do you have concerns about slowing down that development, or is there merit to taking a slower, more iterative approach to fielding technologies? First of all, I actually agree with Congress on this. It is frustrating when you get marks on “large unmanned surface vessel” because they are concerned with the command and control of the missile systems that we could potentially put on those platforms or other systems. I go back to the campaign plan: The approach has to be deliberate. We have to make sure that the systems that are on those unmanned systems with respect to the [hull, mechanical and electrical system], that they are designed to requirement, and perform to requirement. And most importantly, are those requirements sound? I go back to: Do I really need a littoral combat ship to go 40 knots? That's going to drive the entire design of the ship, not just the engineering plant but how it's built. That becomes a critical factor. So if you take your eye off the ball with respect to requirements, you can find yourself drifting. That has to be deliberate. With respect to the systems we are putting on unmanned vessels, I'd say we absolutely learned from LCS and Ford; those have to be proven systems that are prototyped and land-based tested before we start doubling down and going into production. The littoral combat ships are quickly coming off the lines. Is the Navy prepared for them? There are things in the near term that I have to deliver, that I'm putting heat on now, and one of them is LCS. One part is sustainability and reliability. We know enough about that platform and the problems that we have that plague us with regard to reliability and sustainability, and I need them resolved. That requires a campaign plan to get after it and have it reviewed by me frequently enough so that I can be sighted on it. Those platforms have been around since 2008 — we need to get on with it. We've done five deployments since I've been on the job, we're going to ramp that up two and a half times over the next couple of years, but we have got to get after it. LCS for me is something, on my watch, I've got to get right. I also have to deliver both the mine and anti-submarine warfare modules. These ships are probably going to [start going] away in the mid-2030s if the [future frigate] FFG(X) build goes as planned. But I need to wring as much as I can out of those ships as quickly as I can. Have you seen any significant successes with the ship? I do think we have it about right with manning. We were honest with ourselves that the original design wasn't going to do it. I really like the blue-and-gold construct because I get way more [operational availability] than I would with just the single crew. So I can get these ships out there in numbers doing the low-end stuff in, let's say, 4th Fleet where I wouldn't need a DDG [destroyer]. The Navy deployed the LCS Detroit to South America — the 4th Fleet area of operations — last year on a counternarcotics mission, and it returned earlier this month. Those are the kinds of missions for which the LCS is perfectly suited. I can deploy these things with a [law enforcement detachment] and a signals intelligence capability, and I can do that on LCS with carry-on gear. It's the right kind of platform for that. Also in 5th Fleet, those maritime security missions that we were heavily sighted on in the late 1990s and early 2000s: They still exist, I'd just prefer to do them with an LCS instead of a DDG if I can. What other programs have caught your attention? In unmanned, whether it's the MQ-4C Triton [long-range surveillance drone] or the MQ-25 Stingray [carrier-based tanker drone], I've got to put heat on those. We have to get them out there in numbers, operating with a high level of confidence, so we can leverage what we learn across the rest of the unmanned build. In the wake of the Fat Leonard bribery scandal, the fatal accidents in 2017 and now the most recent fire onboard the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard, there are questions about systemic issues in the Navy. What are your thoughts about that? The Pentagon and Washington, D.C., drives you to focus on things. One of things [the late Air Force Col.] John Boyd talked about was that the priorities, even in a highly technical world, need to be on people, ideas and machines in that order. The issues we've faced in the Navy over the past few years all come back to people. They all come back to culture. If I draw it to Fat Leonard or to the 2017 Comprehensive Review or the review we did with the SEALs, most of that is cultural. Ninety-five percent of it is people-focused. It really comes down to leadership. That is not lost on me. It is easy in this building not to pay attention to it, but it is on my mind, and at the fleet commander level those are the things we talk most about: people, training, attitude. It's premature to judge the outcome of the investigation into Bonhomme Richard, but what questions do you have as you look at the scale of that disaster? This is a very, very serious incident that I think will force the Navy to stand back and reevaluate itself. We've got to follow the facts. We've got to be honest with ourselves and we've got to get after it. My intention, once the investigations are done, is to make this available for the public to debate, including what we need to do to get after any systemic problems that we might have. But one of things I did on the Sunday [after the fire broke out] was I read the report of the Miami fire back in 2012. That was the last mass conflagration in a shipyard environment that we had. There were a number of recommendations coming out of that incident. One of the questions I have is: Did we fully and adequately implement those recommendations? Because that fire was probably the most recent similar mass conflagration we've had. We learned from that. When we completed the investigation, did we just leave it in the rearview mirror, or did we — no kidding — take it seriously? https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/08/17/top-us-navy-chief-talks-connecting-tech-recovering-from-accidents/

• 

  July 29, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Japan wants to be an official F-35 partner. The Pentagon plans to say no.

  By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and Mike Yeo WASHINGTON and MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan has formally expressed interest in joining the F-35 program as a full partner, but the Pentagon plans to shoot down that request, Defense News has learned. Sources say Japan's request to join the partnership creates major political headaches for the Pentagon, with fears it would cause new tensions among the international production base for the joint strike fighter and open the door for other customer nations to demand a greater role in future capability development. In a June 18 letter from Japan's Ministry of Defense to Pentagon acquisition head Ellen Lord, obtained by Defense News, Atsuo Suzuki, director general for the Bureau of Defense Buildup Planning, formally requests information on how Japan could move from being a customer of the F-35 to a full-fledged member of the industrial base consortium. “I believe becoming a partner country in F-35 program is an option,” the letter reads. “I would like to have your thoughts on whether or not Japan has a possibility to be a partner country in the first place. Also, I would like you to provide the Ministry of Defense with detailed information about the responsibilities and rights of a partner country, as well as cost sharing and conditions such as the approval process and the required period.” “We would like to make a final decision whether we could proceed to become a partner country by thoroughly examining the rights and obligations associated with becoming a partner country based on the terms and conditions you would provide,” the letter concludes. Lord, the Pentagon acquisition head, is scheduled to meet with Japanese officials this week, and the question of membership is expected to come up. But Tokyo won't like the answer. Although Lord's office will be responsible for carrying the final message to Japan, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News that the partnership remains limited to the initial wave of F-35 investors. “The F-35 cooperative Partnership closed on 15 July 2002,” stated Brandi Schiff, a spokesperson for the F-35 JPO. The decision was documented in an April 2002 memo by the Pentagon's acquisition executive stating that, “except for those countries with which we are already engaged in Level III System Development and Demonstration partnership negotiation by 15 July 2002, we will not be able to accommodate any additional Level III partners due to our inability to offer equitable government-to-government benefits and U.S. industry's inability to offer equitable 'best value' workshare arrangements,” according to Schiff. The F-35 partners in 2007 reiterated in a separate memo that only the partners who participated in the development phase of the F-35 program would be eligible to remain partners during the production, sustainment and modernization stages. A source familiar with internal discussions says the Pentagon is concerned that letting Japan become a program partner would lead to other nations demanding similar access. Japan's query is hitting the F-35 program at a time of change. Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the JPO, retired this month after only two years on the job, and Turkey's pursuit of a Russian air defense system has resulted in them being booted from the F-35 consortium, with all work being done by its companies to end early next year. So in many ways, Japan asking to be made a full partner now makes sense, said a former senior official in the F-35 program, who agreed to speak on background out of respect for current decision makers. “You now lost a partner in Turkey, so there is a vacant parking space, so to speak. And other than the U.S. services, [Japan] will be the one nation with the most F-35s,” the former official said, noting two changes that have happened in just the last year. “Ultimately, the Department of Defense, in coordination with the State Department, made up the rules," the former official said. "The Department of Defense can change the rules.” Global impact There are two tiers of participation in the F-35 program. The first-tier members are considered “partners” in the program, which comes with direct involvement in the joint program office. That includes having national representatives stationed in the JPO, weighing in on decisions about future capabilities, and deciding what future industrial participation looks like. And that industrial participation is important — building parts of the jet that go into the global supply chain is expected to net the partner nations billions in revenue over the lifetime of the program. The partners are made up of the first nine nations to sign onto the program: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The second tier consists of “customers” for the jet, comprising nations that came later to the program. Those nations command less industrial participation, lack voting power on what future development of the jet looks like, and do not have officials assigned to the JPO. That tier is made up of Israel, South Korea, Belgium and Japan, but could expand in the future with Finland, Singapore and other nations. In December 2018, Japan announced a plan to expand procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147 jets, making it the single largest F-35 operator outside of the United States, as well as one of only three foreign nations to operate the F-35B jump-jet model. But Tokyo appears interested in increasing its teaming with the program, in large part because it wishes to take part in guiding new capabilities development as the plane gets ready for its Block 4 upgrade. “There are various merits in participating in continuous capability development and delivery deliberation process by partner countries. In addition, there is a further need to obtain flight safety information for accountability to the public,” the letter from the Japanese defense ministry reads. “I understand that partner countries are allowed to join [JSF Executive Steering Board], to be involved in capability improvement, to dispatch their personnel to JPO, to participate in parts production and to access further information.” The emphasis on the need to obtain flight safety information is notable, after an F-35A crashed into the ocean in April, resulting in the loss of both the plane and its pilot. Japanese officials have since blamed the crash on spatial distortion for the pilot. However, customer nations receive the same safety information that partners do, albeit slightly delayed due to the need to clear information. The letter also acknowledges that “partner countries share significant costs,” an indication that Japan would be willing to pony up more cash in order to join the inner circle of F-35 members. From a pure program logistics perspective, Japan becoming a partner would not be a problem, and in fact program officials would likely find it easier to deal with the largest foreign buyer of the F-35 as a partner rather than customer overall. The politics, however, quickly get tricky. Should Japan be allowed to join, the former official noted, “you've opened Pandora's box.” The former official specifically said that South Korea, due to its complicated political relationship with Japan, and Israel, which was the first nation to be added as a customer after the partnership option was closed, would try to use Japan's joining the program as a way in, as well. The official also highlighted Belgium, for now the sole NATO ally buying the F-35 as a customer and not a partner, as a nation with a strong case for promotion should Japan be allowed in. The best argument DoD could make would be that the sheer size of Japan's buy deserves special privileges, but that sets a bar that other nations could look to climb and effectively buy their way into a partnership. “This is a very interesting political football that DoD has to wrestle with. This is a bigger political decision than a programmatic one,” the former official noted. “I personally think DoD doesn't want the headache if they say yes.” No other countries have made formal requests to join the program, Schiff confirmed. Requests for comment from Lord's office, as well as the Japanese MoD, were not returned by press time. Benefits for Japan In terms of industrial participation, there are opportunities for Japanese firms to pick up work that has been removed from Turkey, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Major Turkish defense firms have had a hand in building hundreds of parts for the jet. Turkey's expulsion from the program, which includes the United States blocking Turkey's planned procurement of 100 fighters, means that production will at least temporarily move to the United States, with a plan to farm it out to other partners in the future. Turkey's aerostructures work could be picked up by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and to a lesser extent Kawasaki and Subaru, Aboulafia said. But he said he was “baffled” by the idea Japan would want more industrial participation at the same time they have publicly moved away from its domestic final assembly and check out (FACO) facility, which since 2013 has handled final production on Japan's domestic F-35s. The FACO facility, which is operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, will continue to carry out production work until FY22 to fulfill the F-35As contracted by Japan between FY15 and FY18. Instead, Aboulafia sees Japan's interest as being driven by a desire for future developments, given the decision to increase the island nation's planned procurement of the jet. “If they are going to base their fighter force on this plane for decades to come, they clearly want a say in how this plane is upgraded,” he said. “It's a sovereignty thing.” And floating in the background is another potential complicating factor for the Pentagon: Japan's continued drive to develop an indigenous fighter. Japan is developing a new fighter type to replace the indigenous Mitsubishi F-2 fighter currently in service, and wants the new design to enter service in the 2030s. It is also looking at development pathways for this project, with a fully indigenous design, collaboration with a foreign partner, or a spinoff from an existing fighter design being considered as possible options. The country is already conducting research and development into a number of relevant areas for fighter design, including stealth technologies, fighter engines and active electronically scanned radars, and had previously built a technology demonstrator, the X-2 Shinshin, and carried out a series of test flights with this aircraft to validate these technologies. Asked if the Japanese could be considering the fighter program in their decision to pursue membership in the F-35, Aboulafia bluntly responded, “How could they not?” Schiff, the JPO spokesperson, said the F-35 remains a critical focal point of the U.S.-Japan alliance. “Any opportunities to strengthen the alliance through interoperability and cooperation will be emphasized. As an FMS customer, Japan participates in F-35 user groups and other bi-lateral forums and engagements," she said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/07/29/japan-wants-to-be-an-official-f-35-partner-the-pentagon-plans-to-say-no/

• 

  October 30, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - October 30, 2019

  NAVY CubicGATR Technologies Inc., Huntsville, Alabama, is awarded a $325,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the purchase of up to a maximum 172 Next Generation Troposcatter system manufacturing and delivery, test support, technical data delivery, logistics data delivery, training data delivery and training support, fielding support and sustainment support. Work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama, and is expected to be complete by October 2029. Fiscal 2019 procurement (Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $28,820,220 will be obligated on the first delivery order immediately following contract award, and funds will not expire at the end of current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with two offers received. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity (M67854-20-D-2000). BAE Systems Land & Armaments LP, Sterling Heights, Michigan, is awarded a $119,938,228 modification to exercise options for the fixed-price-incentive (firm target) and firm-fixed price contract line item numbers (CLINs) 4000, 4003 and 4004 portions of a previously awarded contract (M67854-16-C-0006). This modification is for the purchase of 30 Amphibious Combat Vehicles and associated production, fielding and support costs and depot support products. Work will be performed in York, Pennsylvania (60%); Aiken, South Carolina (15%); San Jose, California (15%); Sterling Heights, Michigan (5%); and Stafford, Virginia (5%), and is expected to be completed in January 2022. Fiscal 2020 procurement (Marine Corps) funds in the amount of $119,938,228 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was based on full and open competition with the solicitation publicized on the Federal Business Opportunities website with five offers received. The option CLINs were included within that contract and are being exercised in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.217-7 Option for Increased Quantity-Separately Priced Line Item. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia, is the contracting activity (M67854-16-C-0006). Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation-Marine Systems, Sunnyvale, California, is awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee $7,542,234 contract modification (P00024) to a previously awarded contract (N00030-16-C-0015) to provide support for technical engineering services, design and development engineering, component and full scale test and evaluation engineering and tactical underwater launcher hardware production to support the development and production of the Common Missile Compartment. Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, California (55%); Ridgecrest, California (20%); Cape Canaveral, Florida (10%); Bangor, Washington (5%); Kings Bay, Georgia (5%); Barrow-In-Furness, England (2%); New London, Connecticut (1%); Quonset Point, Rhode Island (1%); and Arlington, Virginia (1%), with an expected completion date of Sept. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $315,604; and United Kingdom funding in the amount of $5,454,694 are being obligated on this award. Funds in the amount of $315,604 expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Subject to the availability of funding, fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation and United Kingdom funding in the amount of $1,771,936 will be obligated on this award. Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Stonewin Capital LP, New York, New York, has been awarded a minimum $34,494,452 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for marine gas oil. This was a competitive acquisition with 41 responses received. This is a 60-month contract with one six-month option period. Locations of performance are New York, California, Texas and South Carolina, with an Oct. 31, 2024, performance completion date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Military Sealift Command, Coast Guard and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2024 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (SPE608-20-D-0350). AvKare Inc., Pulaski, Tennessee, has been awarded an estimated $10,600,000 firm-fixed-price requirements contract for Metformin HCL ER tablets. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. This is a one-year base contract with four one-year option periods. Locations of performance are Tennessee, New York and Kentucky with an Oct. 28, 2020, performance completion date. Using customers are Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Services, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2D2-20-D-0084). AIR FORCE L‐3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC, Madison, Mississippi, has been awarded an estimated $30,000,000 firm-fixed‐price, indefinite‐delivery/indefinite‐quantity modification (P00019) to previously awarded contract FA8106‐17‐D‐0001 for contractor logistic support of the Air Force C‐12 fleet. Work will be performed in Madison, Mississippi; San Angelo, Texas; Okmulgee, Oklahoma; Buenos Ares, Argentina; Gaborone, Botswana; Brasilia, Brazil; Bogota, Columbia; Cairo, Egypt; Accra, Ghana; Tegucigalpa, Honduras; Budapest, Hungary; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; Nairobi, Kenya, Rabat, Morocco; Manila, Philippines; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Bangkok, Thailand; Ankara, Turkey; Edwards Air Force Base, California; Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico; Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson, Alaska; Oslo, Norway; and Yokota Air Base, Japan, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2020. The estimated cumulative face value of the contract is $120,000,000. Fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement funds are being used and no funds are being obligated at the time of the award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY InteIillidyne LLC, Falls Church, Virginia, has been awarded a $27,041,715 firm-fixed-price contract to provide direct support to the Defense Health Agency (DHA) Global Service Center and the enterprise to fully support the integration of all desk side support, remote, or onsite troubleshooting, onsite information technology touch labor, network support services activity program management, network security and infrastructure assurance activities to include risk management framework support, in-room video teleconferencing support, Defense Health Headquarters site asset management and network/systems engineering, where required, into the Military Health System Joint Active Directory Management and the Military Health System Medical Community of Interest network environment systems and infrastructure. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition. This contract will have a one year period of performance, Oct. 30, 2019, to Oct, 29, 2020, with one six-month option period. This contract provides continuity of services until DHA is able to conduct a competitive award anticipated in the third quarter of fiscal 2020. This award utilizes fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $27,041,715. The Defense Health Agency, Falls Church, Virginia, is the contracting activity. ARMY Quasonix LLC,* West Chester, Ohio, was awarded a $21,736,371 firm-fixed-price contract for Quasonix telemetry transmitters in support of live fire testing. One bid was solicited via the internet with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 28, 2024. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W91CRB-20-D-0003). MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Azusa, California, is being awarded a firm-fixed-price prototype award with a total value of $20,000,000 through the Missile Defense Agency's authority under 10 U.S. Code § 2371b. This prototype award was competitively solicited via publication through the Space Enterprise Consortium Other Transaction Agreement between Space and Missile Systems Center and Advanced Technology International (FA8814-18-9-0002). Twelve proposals were received. Under this award, the performer will provide the Missile Defense Agency's Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor Program with prototype payload design and signal-chain processing risk reduction demonstration. The work will be performed in Azusa, California, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $15,000,000 will be obligated at the time of award. These funds will expire at the end of the 2020 fiscal year. Missile Defense Agency, Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, is the contracting activity (HQ0857-20-9-0003). Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia, is being awarded a firm-fixed-price prototype award with a total value of $19,995,345 through the Missile Defense Agency's authority under 10 U.S. Code § 2371b. This prototype award was competitively solicited via publication through the Space Enterprise Consortium Other Transaction Agreement between Space and Missile Systems Center and Advanced Technology International (FA8814-18-9-0002). Twelve proposals were received. Under this award, the performer will provide the Missile Defense Agency's Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor Program with prototype payload design and signal-chain processing risk reduction demonstration. The work will be performed in San Diego, California, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $15,000,000 will be obligated at the time of award. These funds will expire at the end of the 2020 fiscal year. Missile Defense Agency, Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, is the contracting activity (HQ0857-20-9-0002). Harris Corp., Fort Wayne, Indiana, is being awarded a firm-fixed-price prototype award with a total value of $19,994,752 through the Missile Defense Agency's authority under 10 U.S. Code § 2371b. This prototype award was competitively solicited via publication through the Space Enterprise Consortium Other Transaction Agreement between Space and Missile Systems Center and Advanced Technology International (FA8814-18-9-0002). Twelve proposals were received. Under this award, the performer will provide the Missile Defense Agency's Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor Program with prototype payload design and signal-chain processing risk reduction demonstration. The work will be performed in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $15,000,000 will be obligated at the time of award. These funds will expire at the end of the 2020 fiscal year. Missile Defense Agency, Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, is the contracting activity (HQ0857-20-9-0001). Raytheon Co., El Segundo, California, is being awarded a firm-fixed-price prototype award with a total value of $19,958,883 through the Missile Defense Agency's authority under 10 U.S. Code § 2371b. This prototype award was competitively solicited via publication through the Space Enterprise Consortium Other Transaction Agreement between Space and Missile Systems Center and Advanced Technology International (FA8814-18-9-0002). Twelve proposals were received. Under this award, the contractor will provide the Missile Defense Agency's Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor Program with prototype payload design and signal-chain processing risk reduction demonstration. The work will be performed in El Segundo, California, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $15,000,000 will be obligated at the time of award. These funds will expire at the end of the 2020 fiscal year. Missile Defense Agency, Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, is the contracting activity (HQ0857-20-9-0004). *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2002532/source/GovDelivery/